Anti-Gay Word Salad Shooters Now Talking Secession, Splitting Up States

The benefits of last week’s SCOTUS rulings on marriage are immeasurable. So many people’s lives will improve as a result and the groundwork is laid for the rest of the state marriage bans to fall. As wonderful as those things are, I would argue that for the short term, the most fun part of last week’s rulings is watching the Religious Right implode themselves into a freakish puddle of insanity in response. It’s as if they actually believe their own rhetoric, which is frightening.

Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union (see what they did there?), who never has been known to temper his words in order to appear on an even keel, suggests that Southern California should secede from Northern California, due to the fact that he apparently thinks that Judge Walker’s ruling only applies in Northern California. Why he thinks that, heaven only knows:

By accusing backers of traditional marriage of being motivated only by animus against homosexuals, the U.S. Supreme Court has become the most prominent hate group in the country.

Because Fundamentalist Christians have a victim complex, and faced with a ruling that will change nothing about their lives, rather than laying down their swords and lightening up a little bit, they have chosen to stay and derp.

It’s hateful to defame people by falsely accusing them of bigotry. If you want to see how it’s done, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been defaming Christians for years. Or read Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor.

They aren’t bigots because they say they’re not bigots. We’ve never heard that argument before in American history, have we?

Proponents apparently knew the fix was in. The American Civil Liberties Union ran a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal the next day, proclaiming jihad against the 36 states that aren’t in the “freedom to marry party.” As for the freedom of millions who disagree? Ah, well.

Seriously? The ACLU used the word jihad? I highly doubt that. It’s almost as if Robert Knight thinks that we only want full equality in order to stick it sad sacks like himself. Of course, the “millions who disagree” are just as free as they always were. There is no Constitutional amendment against hurting a wingnut’s fee wees.

The jihad won’t stop with the same-sex counterfeit. If sexual complementarity is no longer a valid requirement, why should marriage be limited to two people?

I don’t know, Robert. As soon as someone actually starts making that argument, let’s talk about it.

Justice Kennedy has emerged as the most powerful man in America when it comes to advancing the homosexual agenda and uprooting Judeo-Christian sexual morality. In 1996, he wrote the Romer v. Evans ruling that struck down Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment Two, which barred inclusion of the amorphous “sexual orientation” in state and local statutes. Clear-headed Coloradans had seen how such a term could be abused to distort civil rights and tried to head it off.

They ran into the buzz saw of a liberal judiciary, topped by Justice Kennedy’s unctuous ruling accusing them of bigotry.

In 2003, Justice Kennedy struck again. Citing junk science and foreign laws, he wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that vacated anti-sodomy laws. It helped that the state’s advocates didn’t bother making a public health case against behavior that still accounts for the bulk of new HIV infections in America and a host of other deadly illnesses. If you keep throwing away aces, don’t expect to win the poker game.

I will concede that it is a bit strange that Justice Kennedy has had so much power on this issue over the last two decades, but I suppose I’m glad we elected him emperor. Of course, Kennedy’s rulings in Romer and Lawrence were sound, rooted in reality and real science. I know that folks like Robert feel that if they continually assert that the sane world relies on “junk science,” that it’ll somehow become true in the public eye, but that only works if people are listening.

Wednesday’s related Hollingsworth v. Perry, a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice John (“I learned to love Obamacare, and you can, too”) G. Roberts Jr., denied standing for defenders of California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 constitutional marriage amendment. Instead of hearing the merits, they punted it back to the court where U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had struck it down.

By ducking the case, the Supremes managed to put another bullet into marriage, not to mention self-government. The takeaway: Any time an executive branch official disagrees with a constitutionally enacted law or amendment, the law is null and void. This means that governors, like the president, are now more like kings than public servants constrained by constitutional divisions of power.

Oh, how the wingnut simplifies and misrepresents. One of the major things the defenders of Proposition 8 were called on to prove was injury. They had to prove that there would be a truly deleterious effect, to them personally, if marriage equality returned California, and they couldn’t do it. Why? Because wingnuts just don’t do well in court. When your entire movement is based on thinly-veiled Bible-beating, you’re not going to succeed in venues where you actually have to show your work.

The concept of self-rule is fast becoming only a speed bump to the ruling elites, who are determined to refashion America into an updated version of Sodom. They will let nothing, certainly not state laws or the U.S. Constitution, get in the way. Judge Walker, who is homosexual and should have recused himself, could find no societal reason for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman other than “animus” towards homosexuals.

They couldn’t find it because your side’s best and brightest couldn’t string together ten believable words which would suggest otherwise. We casually note his suggestion of recusal for Judge Walker, and merely suggest that because Knight claims that he’s trying to preserve “traditional marriage,” that any judge involved in a “traditional marriage” should also recuse himself. Oh, that’s not how the deficient wingnut brain works? My bad.

All of this is leading up to this gutter ball:

Judge Walker’s ruling applies only to the Northern District of California, leaving the rest of the state’s law intact. This gives Southern Californians more incentive to push secession. For years, sensible Southland folks have wanted not to reside in a state represented in Washington by Rep. Nancy Pelosi or in Sacramento by Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown.

Incorrect. At issue was the state of California’s law. As such, any ruling on it affects the entire state. Look, here is a story about Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa performing marriages. Cannot believe I’m having to correct this…

I hope they can pull it off, but I wonder where the rest of us are going to live when mere belief in the biblical definition of marriage is grounds for civil action and eventually criminal prosecution?

In the same rathole of delusion you’re living in now, I suppose, as in the real world, no one is trying to take anything away from you. Your cultural supremacy (which was never enshrined into law, no matter how much you’d like it to be so), well, that bird flew years ago. You’re just finally seeing the demographic shift that’s occurred. We are very sorry that you are upset that facts, reason, thinking, science, good will and compassion won the day over your frightening, stifling, anti-intellecual, unhealthy worldview, but we assume that you will figure out a way to survive.

Perhaps, Robert, you could live with this guy, Paul Craft, who, according to Alan Keyes’ website Renoo Murka, lives in Kentucky. He is suggesting that certain states (he has no idea which) should secede from the United States, over gay marriage:

My opinion is that this day, June 26, 2013, is the beginning of the end for the United States of America. Christians, conservatives, and liberals to a small degree, who believe in the Judeo-Christian values of our forefathers will find them boxed in by the government police and men and women in society who will elect to stay quiet instead of facing pressure from society. We will no longer have a place to hide.

See, Robert Knight? He’s looking for a place to hide too. Perhaps you could go shopping together for all the supplies you’ll need for the coming Gay Onslaught, in which gay couples will have the same rights you’ve always enjoyed and that’s pretty much it. Make sure to stock up on canned goods.

I may be ahead of my time on calling for secession, but unless things change it will become evident over time.

All righty then.

Brian Brown said something equally hilarious on television yesterday, but that deserves a post of its own. If you’re in the mood for more of their lamentations, go read Roy Edroso’s weekly right-blogger round-up and laugh.

About the Author

Related Posts

9 Comments

“If sexual complementarity is no longer a valid requirement, why should marriage be limited to two people?”

If only male/female marriages should be allowed why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman. Why not two men and two women, or one man and seven women?

Richard RushJuly 1, 2013 at 1:10 pm -

I hadn’t heard from Robert Knight for some time, and was beginning to wonder if he got out of the persecution business. Obviously not. Back in the days when both he and Porno Pete were Concerned Women, he was a daily presence on the gay-bashing circuit.

GianniJuly 1, 2013 at 1:13 pm -

Not bigots? Please, someone, direct this man to a Webster’s Unabridged. Look up the word, bonehead. You fit it to a T.
Interesting that after all their dire predictions of what will happen to the USA because of its “toleration” of homosexuality, these ‘patriots’ are now suggesting how to make real those same predictions. You, yourselves, want to be the agents of the downfall. Clue: You are not allowed to secede from the Union. The South tried that once; it didn’t work. Such masters at intelligent thinking, you are. And where in hell is it written that Judeo-Christian values HAVE TO BE the law of the land? Our Constitution is not, repeat NOT, based on anything Judeo-Christian. It is based on English Common Law. Get a clue, fool.

Oh and please mention to Mr Knight that the Ninth Circuit Is Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, (The whole state of) California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and Arizona (and occasionally Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). Just because they’re headquartered in SF doesn’t mean that their jurisdiction doesn’t apply to the whole Circuit.

JoanieHJuly 1, 2013 at 6:54 pm -

I think this twit needs to study our history a bit more.

“An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right” Thomas Jefferson

BTW Homosexual replaced Sodomite in 1946. The two terms are not equal. He might also want to study his Bible a bit more closely: “49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” Ezekiel 16 NIV

Get to Know Us

Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that fights the "ex-gay" myth and antigay religious extremism.

TWO monitors anti-LGBT organizations, documents their lies and exposes wrongdoing. TWO specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating and fighting for truth, integrity, and equality for sexual minorities.